VKM

TNA's PPVs Attendance and Projections

I have been researching on TNA's PPVs, and from the looks of it things are not going good. I never thought that the PPVs made by TNA had so much low attendance, I knew that they we're bad but the attendance is just horrible. Here's a look at their PPV attendance rate from 2009-2010:

The attendance seems very, very poor. The only PPVs that actually draw in big numbers are Lockdown and Bound For Glory. And between the two, Lockdown draws in bigger numbers. Could it be because of the creativity TNA spent working on the PPV? Let's look at the numbers of Lockdown at 2009:

Lockdown 2009
Attendance: 4,500
Main Event: Mick Foley vs. Sting

This is crazy, last year's Lockdown was even bigger and the main event was Mick Foley vs. Sting!? That says something there. Let's look at Bound For Glory 2009:

Bound For Glory 2008
Attendance: 5000
Main Event: Sting vs. Samoa Joe

Wow! This is big! Scored a 5000 in 2008 but in 2009 it went very low, to a 2,400. Think about it. Let's look at lockdown 2008:

Lockdown 2008
Attendance: 5,500
Main Event: Samoa Joe vs. Kurt Angle

Once again, TNA outdoes themselves with a much bigger attendance. The point of this blog is that before 2009 - 2010, TNA was doing much better with there bigger PPVs like Bound For Glory and Lockdown. It appears that TNA creative management should revamp their other PPVs and keep Lockdown the way it is and make Bound For Glory even more explosive. To me, Lockdown is the greatest PPV. I say this because of it's creativity of the steel cage matches. TNA should try to go for a more creative approach on their ppvs instead of the same old stale product. Slammiversry in 2008 and 2009 were actually better in attendance (I failed to mention) Slammiversary in 2008 drew 2,000 fans which is close to what Bound For Glory drew in 2009. And in Slammiversary 2009, it drew 4,000 in attendance. But in 2010, it didn't do great at all, and it's probably because of the removal of the King of the mountain match. King of the Mountain match gave creativity to the PPV and because of that their attendance grew even larger. Now you might say "well what about Destination X?" Ever since, 2008, TNA has stopped focusing on the X Division and so that's why the PPV sucked. It has creativity in the PPV but let's be honest TNA doesn't try to do kit's best to get the X Division noticed. I say drop Destination X or focus on the X Division more.

TNA Impact Zone CapacityI left out a very big point that some people from the comments posted. The Impact zone maximum capacity is about 1,350. But my point was not to bash TNA because of their low attendance rate it was to show that TNA needs to become more creative. I looked at TNA lockdown 2010 and it was held at the Family Arena in Saint Charles, Missouri and it's maximum capacity is 11,522. For basketball: 10,467 For Football: 9,775 For Hockey: 9,653, Half house concerts: 6,339 and For end stage concerts: 11,522. TNA can only pick the above events with the maximum capacity and TNA Lockdown 2010 had only 3,023 fans in attendance. Do the math people, TNA's attendance was less than half of the maximum capacity. "If TNA thought they could fill a bigger venue, you'd think they would use one for their PPV's. I seem to remember that their PPV buy rate is pretty low too, though. At least compared to WWE and what WCW did in their day. " - Tim So as you see, my point still remains valid.

Comments

Nice post. Just have to wonder though, what about PPV buys? From what I heard, it's okay to have a low attendance as long as PPV buys are good because it brings in more money. Not sure how true that is. Anyway, my question is does the attendance enumerated reflect PPV buys as well?

You may have some point, but the impact zone is only legally aloud to hold 1,100-1,200 people depending on other outside factors. So to have any sort of point here, look at the ones outside of the impact zone. Also, look the the amount of seats in those arenas. If there are 1000s of seats left, ok point taken, but if the arenas are smaller and only hold the 2000 people, your not looking at the big picture. Nice try but not enough information here to make any valid point. Looks to me your just trying to be a doom-caller for TNA. That's like saying WM26 had 7,000 seats empty so they are in trouble when they had 90-plus percent of attendence.

Good point about the size of the Impact Zone in the comments. On the other hand, if TNA thought they could fill a bigger venue, you'd think they would use one for their PPV's. I seem to remember that their PPV buy rate is pretty low too, though. At least compared to WWE and what WCW did in their day.

also house shows draw 1000-2000 in most places not all in some cases they draw as many as 500....but i am sayin tna has increased their numbers...this post looks more like a bash on tna imo...more than 2 point out flaws since everyone knows they are runnin the impact zone on the ppvs and i think ur bound for glory 09 numbers are off since i know it was around 3300 so yaeh...wikipedia numbers aint so accurate...just sayin